Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Accessible Jazz vs "Real" Jazz
- Thread starter socialleper
- Start date
I'm pretty much of the same opinion as the OP. Later Coltrane and similar works don't do anything for me either. It seems to me like once the percussion just starts playing without any time for me to hook onto, I loose all interest. I do, however, love Roland Kirk.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t know the boundary between earlier and later, but my inroad to Coltrane was to focus on the rhythm section and harmony. If I focused on the soloing, I didn’t hear the harmony well enough to hear how they fit together.
I often wonder if those that claim to be into his late works are really into it or just saying they are because they want to be considered cool. Like they would say "if I have to explain it to you you'll never understand it anyway"
I love hard bop stuff, some of my fave music. But ... All the Things You Are, etc. ... "are not cool"? Most jazz folks I know would disagree with that pretty vehemently. Hip because interesting changes to play over, with tons of potential for harmonic and melodic improvisation. lots of room for re-harmonizing backing music. Years "out of fashion"? ... mmm, kinda like Bach, pay no attention, out of fashion.
Or as in the post to which you responded,"The difficulty people of your, and my, generation have is that jazz is built largely on standards from the american songbook, which is an aesthetic that we have not learned to understand or appreciate. But you can, and it's well worthwhile in my opinion to do so. There are tons of magnificent music waiting for you."
If you wanna know jazz, it REALLY helps to know what makes those songs attractive for improvisation. And really listen those melodies, and grooves!
A Love Supreme is the “latest” recording I have, so I couldn’t even argue with you if I wanted to. IMHO, one can suggest how to listen, but not how to hear or interpret.I often wonder if those that claim to be into his late works are really into it or just saying they are because they want to be considered cool. Like they would say "if I have to explain it to you you'll never understand it anyway"
Koko. Cherokee blue monk 81 better get it in your soul freedom jazz dance etc...those are JAZZ COMPOSITIONS. Playing 80 years old pop music? Lame. The people who have kept jazz fresh both compose original work and riff over NEW POP MUSIC. I think it was Brad Meldau who started grooving to Nirvana. Now that's thinking outside the box!I love hard bop stuff, some of my fave music. But ... All the Things You Are, etc. ... "are not cool"? Most jazz folks I know would disagree with that pretty vehemently. Hip because interesting changes to play over, with tons of potential for harmonic and melodic improvisation. lots of room for re-harmonizing backing music. Years "out of fashion"? ... mmm, kinda like Bach, pay no attention, out of fashion.
"The difficulty people of your, and my, generation have is that jazz is built largely on standards from the american songbook, which is an aesthetic that we have not learned to understand or appreciate. But you can, and it's well worthwhile in my opinion to do so. There are tons of magnificent music waiting for you."
If you wanna know jazz, it REALLY helps to know what makes those songs attractive for improvisation. And really listen those melodies, and grooves!
Standards are for wallpaper gigs. No one's listening and the band just thumbs through the Real Book
Some art is best appreciated in context. Seeing an Andy Warhol screen print is a more meaningful experience than looking at one in a book.
Some of the more textural or free types of jazz may be the right music for a situation or context like listening with others and reacting in the moment. Otherwise, listening to it would simply be an academic exercise which is fine too.
Some of the more textural or free types of jazz may be the right music for a situation or context like listening with others and reacting in the moment. Otherwise, listening to it would simply be an academic exercise which is fine too.
Yes, I like those tunes quite a bit. Of course, Cherokee is actually one of those "standards" you deride - Cherokee” was written by Ray Noble in 1938, as the first of five movements for an “Indian Suite” (gee that concept's not out of date
). And Koko was written over the changes for Cherokee, for one of Charlie Parker's sessions. Which is what I'm talking about with the potential held in so many of those standard chord structures. It is kind of ironic that you're dissing jazz standards as being "out of date", when the hard bop which you love is ... over half a century old itself.
Just sayin'. Good music is good music, I don't care when it came into the world.
Maybe. We'd be farkes without "I got rhythm". Everything is based off that. Yeah there's a few showtunes and tin pan alley 32 bar structure tunes which still groove.Yes, I like those tunes quite a bit. Of course, Cherokee is actually one of those "standards" you deride - Cherokee” was written by Ray Noble in 1938, as the first of five movements for an “Indian Suite” (gee that concept's not out of date
It is kind of ironic that you're dissing jazz standards as being "out of date", when the hard bop which you love is ... over half a century old itself.
Were you aware that Monk is the most recorded American composer? That Mingus walked away for around a decade due to lack of interest in his original work?
I guess there's a place for standards. But round midnight we want it pure and uncut.
And no I actually wasn't aware that Cherokee wasn't an original jazz composition. I'm still teachable.
Absolutely not true at all.
There are plenty of things I once disliked, and now I don’t.
Like jazz.
I've been listening to jazz via streaming "radio" lately. Specifically WGBH out of Boston. They cover a pretty wide range of material, you don't have to do anything but listen, and if you don't like one of the selections, it will soon be gone and you can forget about it. If there's something you like, you can look up the artist on YouTube and see if they have any more interesting material.
I don't know how much into jazz I'd be if I didn't play it. The rest of my family is mostly into classical, which I also play, but not well enough to perform.
But don't force yourself if you hate it.
I don't know how much into jazz I'd be if I didn't play it. The rest of my family is mostly into classical, which I also play, but not well enough to perform.
But don't force yourself if you hate it.
I think one can make just about anything groove, it's just a matter of how it's approached. "How High the Moon" was a popular song without a strongly pronounced groove to it, but it certainly lends itself to being played with a groove ... and of course, Parker's "Groovin' High" rides on those changes.
I wasn't aware that Monk was the most recorded American composer, though I certainly think of him as widely recorded - do you have a source for that? I know Gershwin had a ton of very frequently performed songs, and "Summertime" in particular was massively recorded. I might've guessed him, though it's not something I've really looked at.
No, wrong. Appreciation for music is at least partly learned, and tastes develop and change over time (for dome).
I often wonder if those that claim to be into his late works are really into it or just saying they are because they want to be considered cool. Like they would say "if I have to explain it to you you'll never understand it anyway"
How often do you wonder about that?
You caught me. I listened to the box set Live at the Village Vanguard, with Eric Dolphy, over and over and just couldn’t get it. So I bought a Trane tee shirt and forgot it.
I still like my American Songbook standards tho.
I was exposed to some Miles Davis Quintet in a music history class in college. I do not know if it was the first or secnd one. It was live. They were all over the place. He did this as a way to cover bebop aka hard bop. Myself and 2 other musicians in the class loved it; everyome else was like what was that? All of the studio recordings I have heard of him have not matched what I saw there. Charlie Parker is also worth a listen if you haven't yet.
Many metal players eventually reach what they think are limits and go to jazz as a next step. You refer to the talented wankers. The jazz/metal parallels are strong, especially if you get into prog metal, largely from northern Europe. Some just want to listen to excellence and don't give a rip if it can be danced to.
Artists will always push the boundaries. You don’t have to like it all or even any of it but I find that familiarity is the generally the key to understanding. I like a lot of jazz and some I don’t like. Some seems self-indulgent and sometimes it sounds like the soloist is in the process of personal catharsis that isn’t intended to be shared. Sometimes it’s challenging and sometimes it soothes. I don’t subscribe to the idea that all creativity is sacred so all efforts must be revered. Like what you like and don’t worry that you don’t get it all.
devnulljp
Supporting Member
I'd suggest giving Ken Burns' Jazz series a watch to get a history.
Wynton Marsalis wrote a few nice books -- Jazz in the Bittersweet Blues of Life and Moving to Higher Ground.
Then listen. I like to listen to different versions of the same piece by the same or different musicians, so you get an idea of what they're doing -- how much is framework and how much is improvised.
Music is subjective. Like what you like.
I quit playing jazz mostly because people can only stomach elevator music and playing one jazz brunch is one too many.
That said, you have to be in the mood for some of the wilder stuff.
Wynton Marsalis wrote a few nice books -- Jazz in the Bittersweet Blues of Life and Moving to Higher Ground.
Then listen. I like to listen to different versions of the same piece by the same or different musicians, so you get an idea of what they're doing -- how much is framework and how much is improvised.
Music is subjective. Like what you like.
I quit playing jazz mostly because people can only stomach elevator music and playing one jazz brunch is one too many.
That said, you have to be in the mood for some of the wilder stuff.
